exploitation by manpower

custardy

Hammyman wrote: »

One only needs to look at the long list of pathetic reasons posties have gone on strike. The last one being, shock horror, having to actually work the hours you were being paid for...

your source on that was?

Red_Elle

Hammyman wrote: »

Because they can make more profit. It is no different to a company that makes sausages and employs under 21's. The amount of profit they make from the reduced wage bill goes up. You don't expect them to start pricing their sausages based on the age of their staff....

I sell laptops. For a certain model it may be £100 for me to buy at the auction that week. The following week I might only pay £50. I'll sell both at the same price because that is the going rate and what people will pay so whilst I can make an extra £50 on that model I will. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.



Here we go....

So you've got a beef because you're a postie as well like the other poster and no doubt bought the same tripe your union told you. And no, I don't work in a recruitment agency however I have worked for agencies as a temp employee for years - most of the 90's and the naughties.

It's good to see someone who actually understands the simply basics of selling. I own a recruitment agency. We're not a charity. We don't make much that money from temps anyway considering the admin costs, but people really don't seem to understand the basics.

We pay tax and NI for temps.
We pay to get payroll done by our Accountant.
We have running costs.
We then have a markup; just like any other business. We don't do this for free.

With some temps, instead of being appreciative that you've been put into a role which loads of others could have happily filled, they !!!!! about the charge rate, which frankly is no-one's business but the clients.

hcb42

duckandcover wrote: »

Spot on. For some reason recruitment is the only industry I can think of which people begrudge for their margin!

Na'h, people think we should heat and light a huge hotel building and pay a large team of staff 24/7 and charge the same for a bottle of wine as Lidl...

Red_Elle

hcb42 wrote: »

Na'h, people think we should heat and light a huge hotel building and pay a large team of staff 24/7 and charge the same for a bottle of wine as Lidl...

This doesn't surprise me. I feel for hotel staff after last night. We stayed at a lovely place and this morning a battleaxe started screaming at the poor girl on reception because there was no lift.
'sorry madam, but we are a listed building,' said the receptionist before getting a mouthful of abuse because the old lady had 'bad legs' and 'don't you people think.' I'd have been tempted to tell her that losing a bit of weight would help her legs significantly more than a lift, but then I'd not be suited to the hotel industry.

hcb42

Red_Elle wrote: »

This doesn't surprise me. I feel for hotel staff after last night. We stayed at a lovely place and this morning a battleaxe started screaming at the poor girl on reception because there was no lift.
'sorry madam, but we are a listed building,' said the receptionist before getting a mouthful of abuse because the old lady had 'bad legs' and 'don't you people think.' I'd have been tempted to tell her that losing a bit of weight would help her legs significantly more than a lift, but then I'd not be suited to the hotel industry.

LOL, I could write a book. But I won't

duckandcover

Red_Elle wrote: »

With some temps, instead of being appreciative that you've been put into a role which loads of others could have happily filled, they !!!!! about the charge rate, which frankly is no-one's business but the clients.

When I worked through a high street agency one summer (i.e. i was one of their candidates), I couldn't believe how many of the other temps I worked with thought that the agency were taking a cut of their pay that THEY were entitled to!

Hammyman

custardy wrote: »

your source on that was?

It appears you've had a few more since then, one being because one of your colleagues was violent towards managers and quite rightly got laid off....

And the last one is because, like the Tube Drivers, you decided you didn't want to abide by the agreement you made in 2007.

custardy

Hammyman wrote: »

It appears you've had a few more since then, one being because one of your colleagues was violent towards managers and quite rightly got laid off....

And the last one is because, like the Tube Drivers, you decided you didn't want to abide by the agreement you made in 2007.

you have little idea of what you are referring to
by the way,who is "you"?
I think you will find if you can actually get youself some facts,then you may realise how wrong you are.
As for abiding to agreements,you are simply proving how ill informed you are.
The Daily Mail really isn't an acceptable reference material.

k66yla

Hammyman wrote: »

How are they avoiding the 12 week rule? They cannot avoid the 12 week rule whether its direct or through their own in house agency.

I notice in your sig you're an ex-postie. Any other lies you've been told by your union which you want to state is fact in this respect?

These are not lies and what Custardy says is true. What have the union got to do with it? Carry on reading the Daily Fail mate just so you get your facts straight :rotfl:

grai

I worked for Manpower for 5 years as a telephonist at the Ministry of Defence

It was a skilled complicated job operating the military network for the armed forces for which I had to sign the Official Secret's act

The M.O.D. were giving Manpower £45,000 a year to have me there - Manpower gave me £16,000 of that!!

Enough said

the workers at Manpower were also very thick and ignorant as you would expect with a cowboy outfit

It was 5 humiliating years of slave labour

when I left they messed up my reference out of spite and I lost the job

Manpower embody the reasons people are now beginning an anti-Capitalist movement